20 December 2009
Jon Lajoie Interview SOON!
There was a schedule change that will push back the Jon Lajoie interview for a couple days. In the meantime, check out Jon Lajoie's YouTube channel where he has been posting funny videos and extras from his FX show, The League
18 December 2009
Jon lajoie Interview TODAY!
Today I will be interviewing Jon Lajoie for the second time. I'll be asking him about his experience filming The League, a comedy on the FX channel. Here's a sneak peak at just how funny the show is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVsLR_2GX0
If you missed my interview with Jon Lajoie last fall, check it out here:
http://rodneymann.blogspot.com/2009/09/jon-lajoie-interview-uncensored.html
14 December 2009
Holy No Update
So I apologize for the major lapse in updates. Although I know it only hurts me. I'm sure, like most of you, school has all but crushed your dreams of being a professional (or at least amateur) blogger come exam time.
I have been busy working on some great essays though that I feel are good enough to feature on the website. If you read them, then sweet, welcome to the circle of the informed. If you don't, then sweet. Now when you come to my mocktail parties on Thursday afternoons, you won't know a thing we're talking about.
Here's a quick bio on Naomi and the book.
Naomi Klien NO LOGO
Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist and author of the New York Times and #1 international bestseller.
Her first book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies was also an international bestseller, translated into over 28 languages with more than a million copies in print.
Here is my essay on the last half decade of advertising techniques
NO LOGO by Naomi Klein was an eye opening reading. The reading was essentially a timeline of the past 30 years in advertising, and the course it took to go from an athoritarian roll to one that embraced distinct cultures in order to stay alive, the only way they could compete with the competing generic goods they succeeded not too long ago.
The amounts shown spent on advertising alone (although it was a figure from 1998) was astonishing, but expected. Reading this made me do some research about the current spending going on for advertising taking into consideration the age-long battle that has already been occuring between branding conglomorates to garner brand loyatly. The number as of the Klein reading was $196 Billion per annum, but an estimated value from 2008 shows figures closer to $450 Billion spent annually on promoting consumption. I found these numbers to be an amazing waste of resources at a time in our existence when resources are becoming more and more scarce. The irony that all of these companies are promoting consumption and with it, self-indulgence, often times ending in terrible amounts of debt, are in fact, themselves, wading in debt.
The realization that these levels of spending was happening every year on advertising alone made me really question the oversight in company expenditures. While I’m sure it’s approved within the company, the fact that it’s aloud to happen while owing so much money to creditors is really unnerving.
An interesting part of the article was when Klein mentioned the change of the placement of brand logos. Once reserved for the inside of clothing on tags, logos like Tommy Hilfigers infamous line design were all over the place. I think back to middle school and all of the kids walking around with Nike swooshes and FUBU plastered across their chests looking like walking billboards, and can’t help but remember the clicks associated with who wore certain types of clothing. They were interchangeable, the person and the clothes. I couldn’t help but be warded off by those massive logos. I didn’t have a reason for opposing it at the time aside from knowing that that little eagle on a shirt, unnecessarily cost an extra $45, and that did not seem worth it at all.
But I suppose the companies had done their homework. They knew what would sell. Finding a market and culture and attach yourself to it. Brands were connecting with their customers on a completely personal level, in contrast to the older style of advertising that used to preach products to you. Customers responded wallets ajar and the advertising technique continued to flourish to the point that the product became the show even more than the supporting artists or athletes.
“Culture Spending” continued to grow, with some brands going as far as to reach into dozens of niche markets trying to spread its name, and recognition. One of the companies mentioned was Virgin. Virgin is a company that builds its empire based on it’s percieved reputation. The conglomerate run by Richard Branson owns a range of ventures from it’s well-known cellphone service to a stem cell holding company. The name is not limited to any one market or product, but instead puts its name on anything and brings with it a well-backed investment and acquisition.
The article’s exploration of child slavery by Nike was shallow at best, but was at least acknowledged. Something I would like to see included in this type of article would be at least a half-hearted portion dedicated to companies that cut costs by exploiting labour laws and human rights. It is a heavy subject and something that deserves its own article, but it would have been good to have incorporated.
It explored the interdependence of celebrities and the brands they are affiliated with. This reading introduced me to synergy and forced me to research it to find out what it was. What I found is a very difficult concept to explain, and one that is circumstantial. What I gather is that by assembling a variety of backings, be them different companies that combine to make your empire, or different sponsors that an athlete uses to brand themselves. It can be an association that lets both sides prosper, but it is a relationship that must remain on good terms or at least not end badly in public in order to withhold the integrity of the parties involved.
The NO LOGO reading effectively chronicled the world of advertising and branding over the past 30 years and had some interesting points. The sheer expenditures from corporations to promote brand loyalty is just mind-blowing and caught my attention. The fact that all of this seems to work is interesting enough without taking into consideration the money going into getting it right. The embracing of the individual is moving product steadily despite unprecedented amounts of collective debt, and does not look like it’s letting up any time soon.
If you thought this essay was thought-provoking, or at the very least, somewhat entertaining - Please forward this to people you think would enjoy a read like this! Thanks.
I have been busy working on some great essays though that I feel are good enough to feature on the website. If you read them, then sweet, welcome to the circle of the informed. If you don't, then sweet. Now when you come to my mocktail parties on Thursday afternoons, you won't know a thing we're talking about.
Here's a quick bio on Naomi and the book.
Naomi Klien NO LOGONaomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist and author of the New York Times and #1 international bestseller.
Her first book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies was also an international bestseller, translated into over 28 languages with more than a million copies in print.
Here is my essay on the last half decade of advertising techniques
NO LOGO by Naomi Klein was an eye opening reading. The reading was essentially a timeline of the past 30 years in advertising, and the course it took to go from an athoritarian roll to one that embraced distinct cultures in order to stay alive, the only way they could compete with the competing generic goods they succeeded not too long ago.
The amounts shown spent on advertising alone (although it was a figure from 1998) was astonishing, but expected. Reading this made me do some research about the current spending going on for advertising taking into consideration the age-long battle that has already been occuring between branding conglomorates to garner brand loyatly. The number as of the Klein reading was $196 Billion per annum, but an estimated value from 2008 shows figures closer to $450 Billion spent annually on promoting consumption. I found these numbers to be an amazing waste of resources at a time in our existence when resources are becoming more and more scarce. The irony that all of these companies are promoting consumption and with it, self-indulgence, often times ending in terrible amounts of debt, are in fact, themselves, wading in debt.
The realization that these levels of spending was happening every year on advertising alone made me really question the oversight in company expenditures. While I’m sure it’s approved within the company, the fact that it’s aloud to happen while owing so much money to creditors is really unnerving.
An interesting part of the article was when Klein mentioned the change of the placement of brand logos. Once reserved for the inside of clothing on tags, logos like Tommy Hilfigers infamous line design were all over the place. I think back to middle school and all of the kids walking around with Nike swooshes and FUBU plastered across their chests looking like walking billboards, and can’t help but remember the clicks associated with who wore certain types of clothing. They were interchangeable, the person and the clothes. I couldn’t help but be warded off by those massive logos. I didn’t have a reason for opposing it at the time aside from knowing that that little eagle on a shirt, unnecessarily cost an extra $45, and that did not seem worth it at all.
But I suppose the companies had done their homework. They knew what would sell. Finding a market and culture and attach yourself to it. Brands were connecting with their customers on a completely personal level, in contrast to the older style of advertising that used to preach products to you. Customers responded wallets ajar and the advertising technique continued to flourish to the point that the product became the show even more than the supporting artists or athletes.
“Culture Spending” continued to grow, with some brands going as far as to reach into dozens of niche markets trying to spread its name, and recognition. One of the companies mentioned was Virgin. Virgin is a company that builds its empire based on it’s percieved reputation. The conglomerate run by Richard Branson owns a range of ventures from it’s well-known cellphone service to a stem cell holding company. The name is not limited to any one market or product, but instead puts its name on anything and brings with it a well-backed investment and acquisition.
The article’s exploration of child slavery by Nike was shallow at best, but was at least acknowledged. Something I would like to see included in this type of article would be at least a half-hearted portion dedicated to companies that cut costs by exploiting labour laws and human rights. It is a heavy subject and something that deserves its own article, but it would have been good to have incorporated.
It explored the interdependence of celebrities and the brands they are affiliated with. This reading introduced me to synergy and forced me to research it to find out what it was. What I found is a very difficult concept to explain, and one that is circumstantial. What I gather is that by assembling a variety of backings, be them different companies that combine to make your empire, or different sponsors that an athlete uses to brand themselves. It can be an association that lets both sides prosper, but it is a relationship that must remain on good terms or at least not end badly in public in order to withhold the integrity of the parties involved.
The NO LOGO reading effectively chronicled the world of advertising and branding over the past 30 years and had some interesting points. The sheer expenditures from corporations to promote brand loyalty is just mind-blowing and caught my attention. The fact that all of this seems to work is interesting enough without taking into consideration the money going into getting it right. The embracing of the individual is moving product steadily despite unprecedented amounts of collective debt, and does not look like it’s letting up any time soon.
If you thought this essay was thought-provoking, or at the very least, somewhat entertaining - Please forward this to people you think would enjoy a read like this! Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)